Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 2 · Part 34 – Part 35
Hesk.The foure and thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text: Si videritis, &c. by Saint Augustine and Saint Cyrill.
Fulke.The text is this: What if you see the sonne of man ascend where he was before? Ere he enter into his exposition, hee moueth this doubt: howe Christe doth say: the sonne of man shall ascend where he was before, seeing concerning his humanitie hee was neuer in heauen, before he spake these wordes? For answere, he bringeth a long sentence of Saint Augustine, which containeth this in effect, that Christ concerning his humanitie, would ascend thither where he was before concerning his diuinitie. For by reason of the vnion of two natures in one person of Christe, that is often spoken of the whole person, which is proper either to the diuine nature onelyonly, or to the humane nature onelyonly.
For exposition hee cyteth Augustine, Tr. 27. in Ioan. Quid est hoc? Hinc soluit &c. What is this? by this he resolueth them, whome he knewe, by this he hath opened whereby they were offended, by this plainely, if they would vnderstand. For they thought that he would giuegive foorth his body: but he saide, that he would ascend into heauen whole. When you shall see the sonne of man ascending where he was before, certainly euen then at least you shall see, that he giueth not foorth his body after that manner, that you thinke: certainly euen then at least you shall vnderstand, that his grace is not consumed with bytinges. Although this place is so directly against him, that nothing can bee more plaine: yet hee is not ashamed to cyte it for his purpose. Affirming, that Augustine by these wordes, denyeth not the giuing of Christes bodye, but the manner of the giuing of his bodye. This wee confesse, but what manner of giuing doth hee denye? Maister Heskins saith: onelyonly the giuing of it by lumpes and peeces, as the Capernaites did imagine. But that is false, for he denieth, not onelyonly the giuing of Christes bodie by lumpes, but also al corporall and carnall manner of giuing thereof, as both these wordes aboue cited, and the whole discourse of that treatise doth shew most euidently. First he saith, that Christ by telling them of his ascention, doth clearely resolue them, and open plainely where at they were offended: Which is very true. For when they should see that he carried his naturall bodie, whole into heauen, they might well perceiue, that he would not giuegive that bodie to be eaten after a corporall manner, either in peeces, & much lesse in the whole. For ye giuing thereof in whole, is much more monstruous, then the giuing therof in peeces. And if there remained a corporall receipt of his whole bodie, notwithstanding his absenting thereof from the earth, the doubt by his ascention is nothing at all resolued, but by an hundreth times more increased. Againe where he saith after his ascention: Then you shall see, that he giueth not his bodie after the manner that you thinke, then you shal vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bitings. By these wordes, he doeth plainely determine, of the manner of giuing, that the Iewes thought, which was corporall, whether it were in whole or in peeces, and after what manner Christes bodie is giuen, namely by grace. But Maister Heskins citeth another place out of Augustine In Psalm. 98. to proue, that he denieth the giuing of his bodie by lumpes or peeces. But the place is altogether against him, if he had alledged the whole, and not cut it off in the waste. Tunc autem, &c. Then when our Lorde setting foorth this had spoken of his flesh, and had saide, except a man eate my flesh, he shall not hauehave in him life euerlasting. Some of the seuentie were offended and saide: This is an harde saying, who can vnderstand it? And they departed from him and walked no more with him. It seemed a harde thing to them which he saide: Except a man eate my flesh he shall not hauehave eternall life. They tooke it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and they thought that our LORDE would cut certeine peeces of his bodie and giuegive them, and they saide: this is an harde saying. Here stayeth Maister Heskins: but it followeth in Augustine.
Ille a…tem instruxit eos, &c. But he instructed them, and saith vntounto them: it is the spirite that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The wordes which I hauehave spoken to you are spirite and life. Vnderstand you spiritually that which I hauehave spoken. You shal not eate this bodie which you see, & drinke that bloud which they shal shed, which shall crucifie me. I hauehave commended vntounto you a certeine sacrament or mysterie, which beeing vnderstoode spiritually shall giuegive you life. Although it be needefull that it be celebrated visibly, yet it must be vnderstoode inuisibly. In these wordes Augustine denieth, not onelyonly the giuing of his bodie in peeces, but all maner of corporall eating of his naturall and visible bodie, and aduoucheth onelyonly a spirituall vnderstanding of this text, that we hauehave beene so long in expounding. But M. Heskins willeth vsus not to triumph before the victorie, for Augustine In sermo. ad Neophy. hath a plaine place for M. Iewel. Hoc accipite in pane, &c. Take ye this in the bread, that did hang on the crosse: Take ye this in the challice, that was shed out of the side of Christ. He shall hauehave death not life, that thinketh Christe a lyar. If M. Heskins had expressed in what booke or …ome, I should hauehave sought for this sermon Ad Norphil. he might hauehave spared me a great deale of labour which I hauehave lost in searching for it and yet cannot finde it. There are many homilies and sermons of Augustine Ad Neophyl: and yet in none of them can I reade that whiche he aduouched out of him. It seemeth therefore that this place is taken out of some later writer yt without iudgement ascribeth it to Augustine, which is not to be found in his workes: And yet the saying is not such but yt it may hauehave a reasonable interpretatiō, for ye bread (after a certein maner as Augustine speaketh) is yt which did hang on the crosse, & the wine is yt which was shed out of his side, yt is sacramētally, but not naturally or after a bodily maner. S. Cyril followeth ca. 22. sup. 6. Ioan. Ex imperitia multi, &c. Many that folowed Christ for lack of knowledge, not vnderstanding his wordes, were troubled. For when they had hearde, Verily, verily I say vntounto you, Except you shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall hauehave no life in you: they thought they had bene called by Christ to the cruell manners of wilde beastes, and prouoked that they would eate the rawe flesh of a man, and drinke bloud, which are euen horrible to be heard: for they had not yet knowen the fourme, and most goodly dispensation of this mysterie. This also (moreouer) they did thinke: howe shall the flesh of this man giuegive vsus eternall life? Or how can he bring vsus to immortalitie? Which things when he vnderstod to whose eyes all things are bare and open: he driueth them to the faith by an other maruelous thing: Without cause (saith he) O syre are ye troubled for my words. And if you will not beleeue that life is giuen by my bodie vntounto you, what will you do, when you see me flie vp into heauen? I doe not onelyonly say that I will ascend, least you should aske againe how that should be, but you shall see it with your eyes so to be done. Therfore what will you say when you see this? Shall not this be a great argument of your madnesse? For if you thinke that my fleshe can not bring life vntounto you, how shall it ascend into heauen like a birde? How shall it flye into the ayre? For this is a like impossible to mankinde. And if my fleshe beside nature shall ascende into heauen, what letteth but it may likewise beside nature giuegive life? Cyrill noteth (as M. Heskins saith) two vaine thoughtes of the Capernaites, one of eating raw the flesh of Christ, the other how yt flesh shuld giuegive life, the latter he answereth at large, the other breefely, they vnderstoode not the fourme and dispensation of the mysterie, by which he meaneth the spirituall & mysticall maner of receiuing his bodie, cleane contrarie to their grosse imagination, for otherwise the ascention of Christe would not answere that doubt, but increase it. Maister Heskins citeth another text, to shewe the power of Christes fleshe, whiche is needelesse, for it is confessed of vsus to be such, as he himselfe hath declared it to be. Non verbo soliù, &c. In Ioan. 14.He did not onelyonly with his worde raise dead men, but also with his touching, to shewe that his bodie also doth giuegive life. If then with his onelyonly touching, corrupted thinges are made sound: how shall we not liue, which doe both tast and eate that fleshe? it will without all doubt refourme againe to immortalitie the partakers thereof. Neither doe thou inquire after the Iewish manner, how? But remember that although water by nature be colde, ye… by comming of fire to it, forgetting her coldene…, it boyleth with heate. Here M. Heskins will not allowe vsus our glosse, that Cyril speaketh of the spirituall receiuing of Christes flesh, because he teacheth more then once, that we are ioyned to Christ not onelyonly spiritually, but also after the flesh, and that by eating the same flesh: as though we could not truely be partakers of the fleshe of Christe▪ by a spirituall receiuing of him, not onelyonly in the sacracrament, but also by faith, without the sacrament. And Cyril saith, we doe both taste and eate his flesh, whiche of necessitie imployeth a spirituall manner of receiuing, for other tast we hauehave not of Christes flesh, but spirituall and by faith. In the ende of the Chapter to deliuer himselfe & his fellowes from the grosse errour of the Capernaites, he scoffeth finely at our spirituall sifting of the sacrament so fine, that we leaue nothing but the bare bran of the signifying signe in our owne hand, whiche is the grosse bread we feede on. If we taught a bare signe or bare bread in the sacrament, there were some place for Maister Heskins ieaste. But when we teache that presence and receiuing, which Maister Heskins so often confesseth to be onelyonly profitable, and which we finde in the scriptures and auncient doctors, we hauehave the sacrament so perfectly boulted and fined to our hand, that we acknowledge no branne or drosse at al to be in the bread, neither yet any dregges at all in the cuppe, whatsoeuer there is in the Popish challice, which the priest hath sucked and licked so drie, that there is not one droppe of the bloud of Christe in it, to quench the thirst of the poore people.
Hesk.The fi…e and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth, in the exposition of the same text, and endeth it by Euthymius, and Petrus Cluniacensis.
Fulk.Euthymius is cited In 6. Ioan. following the exposition of Cyrillus, as he doth often of the olde Greeke writers. Si ergo videritis, &c. If therfore ye shal see, the sonne of man ascending where he was before, what will you say? He speaketh of the assumption of him selfe into heauen, ascending according to his humanitie, where he was before, according to his Diuinitie. For he that can make this fleshe heauenly, can also make it meate of men. Maister Heskins inferreth vponupon this saying, that the argument of the ascention vsed by Christ, is vaine to proue the spirituall eating, but good to proue the reall eating of his fleshe. Note here first, that he counteth the argument of his ascention expounded and vsed by Augustine in the Chapter next before, to be vaine. Secondly although Cyrillus vseth the argument of Christes ascention, to prooue that Christes flesh being eaten, may as well giuegive life, as it could ascend into heauen, doth it therefore proue a reall, corporal, or carnal presence, & eating of Christes bodie, which is taken away by his ascention? But he saith, The flesh of Christ was spiritually the meate of the holie fathers in the olde lawe, therefore that needed not to be proued possible, which was knowen so long before. A wise reason, as though Christ had to doe with faithfull Iewes, and not with Infidels, that neither knew nor beleeued, any such matter: or, if hee had spoken to the Patriarches them selues, as though they had knowne and vnderstoode the mysteries of Christ so distinctly and plainly, that Christes instruction had bene needelesse to them. But Maister Heskins in all his arguments and expositions almost, setteth downe that, as certeine and granted, which is the whole matter in controuersie. His meate is flesh in deede, his flesh is not eaten spiritually, &c. He must hauehave an easie aduersarie, or else he shall gaine litle by such petition of principles. The saying of Petrus of Clunie, though he be but a late writer, conteineth more against him, then for him, for he denieth the mangling of Christs flesh after the Capernaites imaginations, and teacheth, that it is Diuided without paine, parted without diminution, and eaten without consumption, because it is the spirite that quickeneth, and because his fleshe beeing so receiued and vnderstoode, giueth eternall life. What can we here vnderstand but a spirituall receiuing?